NY Times Comment, Layla Law-Gisiko ,July 14, 2026

To the Editor, The New York Times

Your article (Are These Crumbling New York City Housing Projects Worth Saving? Mihir Zaveri, NYTimes, April 4, 2026) casts glass towers and nearby public housing as a contradiction, though it’s unclear what, exactly, that is meant to imply.

That public housing, by virtue of its presence, mars the view? That its proximity to wealth is itself an anomaly to be corrected? The description risks implying that the true incongruity is not the city’s inequality, but the continued existence of low-income residents within sight of prosperity.

New York has never thrived on separation but on proximity between classes, industries, and lives, and the coexistence of public housing and private wealth is not a contradiction, but a democratic ideal, so long as public housing receives adequate funding.

To describe these buildings as “left to slowly deteriorate” is only partially accurate. Deterioration is not a natural condition. It is the result of decisions, years of deferred maintenance, chronic underinvestment, and a failure of stewardship. What was once a failure to maintain becomes, conveniently, a rationale to demolish.

We should be clear about the distinction.

No one disputes the need for safe, well-maintained homes. The question is why the only solution presented is replacement, rather than repair, and who ultimately benefits from that choice.

If there is a contradiction at 27th Street and 10th Avenue, it is not that public housing stands near wealth. It is that a city capable of building $25 billion in new development has, for decades, failed to adequately care for the housing it already owns.

That is not an architectural, an engineering or even a fiscal problem. It is a political one.—Layla Law-Gisiko, President The City Club of New York, District Leader AD75/A, Candidate City Council District 3